Nicely put.

Your culture killed your child.

Your stupid bullshit macho car driving culture killed your child.

Your culture that insists you NEED cars and you NEED to be around them all the time.

Statistics have proven time and again you're far more likely to kill yourself or a family member with your car than you are to kill a bad guy threatening yourself or your family, but people like you still embrace car culture.

That's what killed your child.

And if that car wasn't there at all, your child would still be alive and happy.

@Binro
"And if that gun wasn't there at all, your child would still be alive and happy."

He'd be alive but how could he truly be happy without at least a few guns?

A good point, dairyqueenlatifah.

I look forward to the day we won't need cars to get around anymore.

Of course, some jackasses will insist it is their right to have cars. They'll not only want cars, they will want their cars to be more and more dangerous.

And when they kill someone with their car, they will insist it wasn't because the car was there or that the car was made even more dangerous. The person was killed because the driver was reckless or mentally ill or whatever. We can't take cars away from responsible car owners.

A few thousand innocent lives a year is a small price to pay so a few people can indulge in a dangerous hobby.

Yeah, honestly the prevalence of the auto in possibly one the worst things ever to happen to humanity.
1. Releasing massive amounts of carbon, through fuel consumption and embodied energy.
2. Allowing suburbs and low density development to sprawl all over the landscape.
3. Also ruining urban life by making streets highly dangerous death lanes rather than spaces for the people.
4. Enabling long commutes, atomic families, suburban alientation and generally fucking up society even more.
5. Causing many health issues through sedentary life, not having to walk or cycle, also by filling the air with various harmful fumes.
6. Directly killing huge amounts of people in accidents.

Nah, I'd say the gun still the worst.

Cars at least have some benefit to society, while guns have created none.

My god the idiots who compare guns to cars.

Here's the car vs. guns false dichotomy refuted permanently. Put it in your brain, store it, nurture it:

1. True cars kill people, but they also transport people. They aren't a hobby. They have economic value. People rely on them to feed their families and pay their rent. Anyone that lives in the country or the suburbs needs a car to survive. They don't need guns, aside from a couple million people that live so far away from everything that hunting provides needed calories, but they are a tiny fragment of gun owners, and even those owners don't need handguns and semis.

2. Cars are regulated. You don't have the right to drive a car. Their regulation saves millions of lives a year. If gun culture adherents wish to compare guns to cars, they should embrace widespread regulation of guns.

3. Cars are taxed. Cars are inventoried heavily by the government. This, again, prevents cars from being abused by criminals and by people that don't deserve cars. Meanwhile, millions of stolen guns are out there, stolen from households and from carriers, making fast and furious look like an inside joke.

4. It's hard to premeditate a murder with a car. If the victim is in their house, or behind a tree, or if you happen to miss when you drive past them, the victim lives. You kind of only get one chance to drive over a single target. You can't carry a car into the office, or a bank, or a preschool. You might be able to plow down a crowd, just like you can hack up a densely populated subway station in japan with a knife and get an amount of fatalities close to what you would get with an AR-15 and a hundred round magazine, but these kinds of crimes are outliers.

5. The burden of proof is on gun owners to defend the value of THEIR FUCKING HOBBY against the material evidence of widespread death and destruction. What is the value of YOUR FUCKING HOBBY compared to the hundreds of thousands who are permanently injured, the enormous cost to the medical system, and the incalculable terror the power of firearms inflicts on otherwise peaceful urban and post-industrial communities?

Official training and safety videos are cool and all, but you know the real action will be in the six canister wrist mounted pepper-cannon some 9 year old will build on YouTube.

I've seen someone get bear spray'd and immediately whoop the ass of the guy who used it on him, but sure - trust in a can of aerosol.

This one time, at band camp, a gun failed to stop an attacker. Therefore guns don't work either.

QED, MOTHERFUCKERS!

Why do you even do this, Gmork? One effective way to do something about gun violence (which you don't like) without having to introduce new gun regulations (which you also don't like) would be to encourage people to use a different form of self-defense.

You are starting -- just starting, mind you -- to look like a parody of a gun enthusiast who is more concerned about everyone thinking guns are awesome than in dealing with the problems they introduce and/or magnify. In this particular instance you're apparently mad that I have insulted guns' honor by recommending a non-lethal alternative.

Though I'll give you a half-point, Gmork, in that not all pepper sprays are equal. This one seems pretty good based on reviews:

https://www.amazon.com/Sabre-Red-Pepper-Spray-Ring/dp/B000UVTD LG/ref=sr_1_2

and overwhelmingly well-reviewed.

Don't engage, Bort.

Gmork is just sad he can't call me faggot and black people still exist.

In defense of guns' honor ( you homosocialist traitors! ) most of those self defense sprays are for crap. Adrenaline can do a lot, as can plain old anger. You want the weapons grade stuff at least.

I don't know, sounds like it was a hell of a trick shot.

it would be, but he's just teamkilling people who don't know any better

360 No-Scope

That is reasonable.

If we make doddering old men illegal, only criminals will have doddering old men.

works for me, i was taught the phrase "firearms accident" was an oxymoron

Yeah but I use cars, so it's way easy for me to ignore that and demonize things I have no practical experience with.

You need a license to drive a car, and the misuse of it (impaired or reckless driving, failure to use a child seat, leaving a child in a hot car, etc) will get you charged with manslaughter or negligent homicide no problem.

Also, cars have been specifically designed to be as safe as possible, whereas guns are specifically designed to kill.

*yawn* You need a license and registration and insurance to drive a car on public roads. It's completely legal to drive a car on private property without any of those things.

Guns are designed to be as safe as they can be in the same way that cars are designed to be as safe as several thousand pounds of metal that can accelerate up to ridiculous speeds can be.

The point isn't that they're the same thing, because they're clearly not. What they are is equally fatal to children and bystanders. Your moral outrage is hypocritical if you aren't also bugging your politicians about improving public transit with same retarded fervor.

Umm... improving public transit is a very complicated issue, since there are a number of different means of locomotion, plus establishing routes can be very difficult, plus improving roads is another option that might be viable.

Improving gun regulation, on the other hand, is quite simple: Get a list of gun types, clearly define them, and then ban and/or regulate, as desired. The only complicated part is navigating that political minefield that dipshits like yourself have created.

*yawn* indeed.

Well, then you have to seize all of the offending guns, to spite that there is no database for them. Not-so-yawn.

Translation: I have no idea what current gun laws are, how they work, or how and why they fail. I don't like guns, so we don't need them. I do like cars. and getting rid of them is hard I'm pretty sure, so they're fine.

I can't believe the "Cars kill people too! Anyone who wants gun control but drives is a hypocrite!" defense is still being used. That's an even dumber argument than "Anyone who uses electricity has no right to support environmental laws."

Do people seriously need to have the difference between guns and cars spelled out to them? Their intended purpose, their utility to society, the pros and cons?

There was a period of time when cars were much less safe than they are now due to a lack of features such as airbags, crumple zones, anti-lock breaks, and 3 point safety belts. Due to the hard work and advocacy of many people we, as a country, did the research and imposed many important regulations on the industry to make sure that cars were at least as safe as they could reasonably be.

On the other hand, the gun industry is not only immune to regulation but has lobbied congress so effectively, gun safety can't even be researched in this country.

Only a few kids a year are mauled by tigers.

It is therefore relatively safe for everyone to own a tiger.

Supposed to be a reply to gmork